Few marketing tools are as powerful, or as overlooked, as the category name itself. Before a logo catches the eye or an ad campaign sparks interest, labels like ‘energy drink’ tell shoppers what they are buying, why they need it and where the product fits into their lives.
That seemingly simple descriptor is now facing a challenge. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has directed brands such as PepsiCo's Sting, Red Bull, Monster Beverage, Reliance's Campa Energy Gold Boost and Hell Energy to stop using the label ‘energy drink’, rejecting objections from the industry. Stating the absence of any Indian standards for products marketed as energy drinks as the reason behind the move, FSSAI has reportedly given a 90-day notice to brands for removing the label. Interestingly, Sting has already dropped the ‘energy’ label from its new packaging, while other brands have asked for more time to comply.
In light of this development, beverage manufacturers are being forced to rethink packaging, messaging and consumer communication. The fallout goes beyond relabelling. When a familiar category descriptor is taken off the table, brands risk losing years of accumulated consumer understanding and purchase cues.
Menaka Menon, Head of Strategy, McCann India elaborates, "The term ‘energy drink’ is what has built the category over the last many years in India. It has created a clear distinction in terms of offering for the category.”
Stating that strong category-building in this space, which has happened over the last few decades, can prove to be an advantage, she says, “This has created various semiotic cues that have permeated collective consciousness. From cues of speed to graphical representations of lightning bolts, these will find even more prominence.”
However, she highlights that while existing brands that have built strong equity can lean on cues they have created, the challenge is pronounced for any new entrants into the category. “They will need to find ways to adapt and derive from the cues that have been hardcoded by their predecessors in the category,” Menon states.
Tanvi Sanghi, Executive Creative Director, EFGH Brand Innovations, believes that compliance and brand identity are separate elements. “Regulatory information will evolve, but a brand’s core identity, promise and packaging should remain consistent. Marketers must double down on elements that consumers actually remember—the brand name, distinctive visual assets, colours, packaging architecture, symbols, tone of voice and the larger emotional territory of the brand,” she says.
Ashok Lalla, an independent brand and digital advisor, says that brands can use this as an opportunity to build a franchise beyond the functional attributes of being energy drinks, and focus instead on building a personality around the brand.
The ‘caffeinated beverage’ conundrum
Brand identity may help retain familiarity, but the real test begins once consumers look beyond the name and logo. With the category descriptor set to change, brands will need to rethink how they explain product functionality, ingredients and intended use.
Janhavi Iyer, Vice President - Brand Communications, Gozoop Creative, believes that the tougher job lies not in brand recognition, but in communicating what the product is. “The term ‘energy drink’ made a confusing product simple. The term became shorthand for a wide range of ingredients. Energy could mean caffeine; it could just as easily mean sugar and carbs. So, the moment that word is off the table, brands will have to communicate ingredients and benefits straight up,” she says.
Lalla backs this, saying that upfront disclosure of ingredients and the nature of the beverages will become important. “Brands that proactively tell the truth rather than try and conceal it through clever verbiage will do better with winning consumers' faith.”
These products fall into the category of ‘caffeinated beverages’, making it the most obvious label to accurately communicate the contents of the product, and meet official food standard guidelines. But can such upfront disclosure impact consumers’ purchase behaviour?
Sanghi explains, “‘Energy drink’ is emotional and benefit-led whereas ‘caffeinated beverage’ is functional. The former creates a lifestyle association, while the latter creates awareness and ultimately transparency.”
According to Iyer, the change in label will make consumers more aware, not hesitant. “The people who never cared before aren't suddenly going to start caring because a label got clearer. Transparency doesn't create hesitation; it rewards the people who already valued it. Nothing changes psychologically here, except access,” she says.
She further highlights that Diet Coke is also a caffeinated drink and calls itself so, but that rarely makes consumers think twice before picking it up. “Rationalisation always sets in after instinct. The human decision-making process isn’t as logical as you would like to believe,” Iyer says.
FSSAI's move is ultimately about regulatory clarity, but its ripple effects extend into marketing strategy. As brands swap a benefit-led descriptor for a more functional one, the challenge will be preserving aspiration while embracing transparency. Whether consumers continue to reach for these products may depend less on what the can is called and more on how convincingly brands communicate the value inside it.
